I didn't mean to say that you're decision is flawed. I didn't do a ton of dedicated customers which I think would be a great fit. I was talking more about backbone route connectivity. Anyway, I like SAF but there are a bunch of really good options. I haven't tried trango in a really long time but I thought the diagnostics and UI were pretty lousy.
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017, 6:06 AM Jason McKemie < [email protected]> wrote: > My SIAE rep told me that they recently had a price drop. They were already > pretty competitive, so it might be worth taking a look. > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017, Mathew Howard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Speaking of cheap-ish licensed radios, does anyone have any experience >> with Alcoma? The pricing I got appeared to only be slightly higher than a >> B11, and they'll support full 80mhz channels... they also aren't limited to >> just 11ghz. >> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Regardless of what BS Mimosa gives you or obfuscates around, their B11 >>> does not do FDX. Period. It chews up a gob of spectrum, and none of the >>> links we've tried were capable of full throughput. >>> >>> The AF11 is similar, but different, and DOES do FDX, and that is >>> something significant. So even on links that "look" like they are providing >>> less throughput than the B11, the AF11 will perform better. >>> >>> If you want (or need) full spectrum efficiency, you're best going to >>> SAF, or Trango, or Dragonwave, or Ceragon, etc. >>> >>> >>> bp >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> >>> On 4/12/2017 8:41 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>> >>>> we are looking to drop some dough on these guys if the sales pitch is >>>> true >>>> >>>> does the website handle the FCC stuff? I personally find that hard to >>>> believe, considering the FCC itself has a fee, unless the reseller >>>> (unnamed) is building it into the price. Still less than SAF >>>> Im not looking to move away from SAF, my only complaint with SAF is >>>> that it works too well, so much that I altered routing the other day before >>>> I realized the winds a while back turned the 800 plus pound ballast NPM and >>>> the signal drop wasnt weather fade and that up until essentially nothing >>>> the beast runs at full modulation >>>> >>>> Literally, the only reason for looking at mimosa is the low cost, and >>>> comparing the low cost of mimosa to SAF, its alot, considering SAF is >>>> relatively cheap. >>>> >>>> from what Ive seen, mimosa is like running mikrotik routers, you pay a >>>> shit ton less in exchange for a little more poking, not constant diddling, >>>> just occasional poking. >>>> >>>> I have no interest in looking at ubnt noisy crickets on our licensed >>>> gear, but mimosa seems promising >>>> >>>> I need a good teeth kick now before we commit to at least 3 links >>>> locked into this gear >>>> >>>> SAF presales engineering is on the cautious side, a good example is our >>>> first licensed link, our partner told us could be done with cambium at 2 >>>> foot antennas on each side >>>> >>>> the reseller told use with SAF it required a 3 and a 4, and that >>>> (without saying it) our partner was smoking crack cocain after they took >>>> bath salts. I have no doubt at 2 foot the link would have come up, but not >>>> to a degree that a 30 db drop caused by a turned NPM would still result in >>>> full modulation until failure, >>>> >>>> I dont want to have an "It will link" solution at the end of the day >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>
